Killing Terri: The Final Hours

I thought a law authorizing de novo (from the start, i.e., all-new) review of the facts in a state court case would at least merit an injunction while the judge read the record, but apparently not.

It seems to me there was only one sort of law which could have saved Terri. Any law leaving any discretion in a judge's hands would result in her death.

They should have just passed a law stating that no one who had behaved in a manner incompatible with marriage could remain a guardian of a wife without that wife's explicit written consent and approval. Schiavo's engagement to the woman he's had children by would disqualify him as a guardian, obviously.

I've been reading a lot in the legacy media that dying of thirst and starvation is a really peaceful way to go. If that's the case, we should propose it as a new method of capital punishment to replace lethal injection, etc.

And sounds cheaper, too. And if there's any doubt about the constitutionality about this, we can always bring in Michael Schiavo to offer hearsay testimony that the condemned had previously told him, "Yeah, you know, when I go out, I want to go out hungry, baby."

Just substituted judgment, you know. Hearsay, yes, but "credible and consistent" I think.

"Terri died 15 years ago," Schiavo said, referring to the collapse and cardiac arrest that doctors say virtually destroyed her brain. "It's time for her to be with the Lord like she wanted to be."

Terri died 15 years ago, but apparently his "marriage" to her lives on, and by extension his right to make life and death decisions about her does as well.

An interesting trick.

Good Piece by guest blogger Dorian Davis (at what point does a "guest" become an official cast member, I want to know) over at Alarming News.

Second Verse, Same as the First Update: But I don't care. This is a point worth making, as often and as from as many angles as possible. Cynical Nation offers:

Seems a lot of people want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they defend Michael Schiavo's right to "move on" with his life. On the other hand, they point out that as Terri's "husband," he is her closest living relative, and her fate should rest solely with him.

Well if he's her husband, then he's certainly guilty of adultery, as well as de facto bigamy. Sounds like open-and-shut grounds for divorce to me. Too bad she's in no condition to serve papers on him, huh?

Look, no one can blame him for wanting to move on with his life, but in so doing, he should cede his role as her legal guardian.

Pandora's Box Update: One largely-unexpressed notion that I think is animating the kill-Terri brigade is the belief that if we allow the judges to inquire into who really remains a husband, we'll be opening a Pandora's Box of litigation over these matters in the future.

Fair enough; though generally judges are quite willing to go through years of appeals and review in the case of a man sentenced to be executed; not sure why they should recoil from a thorough examination as regards the execution of the innocent.

But this idea isn't very persuasive, either. Many people die without the convenience of a husband; in such cases, there may be disputes between parents and siblings as too what to do. Courts, of course, must determine who is in the best position to speak on behalf of the silent patient.

Is it such an enormous judicial burden to also conduct such an inquiry as regards a husband-on-paper only?

One last chance to enlist the feminists: Consider that by marrying a man you give him the power of life and death over you, even after he ceases being a family member in fact.

Do feminists concede this power of life-and-death over women to men -- estranged men, virtual-stranger men-- by simple virtue of a piece of paper titled "Certificate of Marriage"?